In his May 7 column, Richard Davis sets up a scene in which he wishes to address the local city council. Before he can speak, however, he claims, "I have to agree to participate in a Buddhist ritual or perhaps a Muslim prayer …" Here is a classic example of misrepresenting a position you wish to attack. The Supreme Court said nothing to suggest one had to agree to participate. If I were the citizen I probably would have been only an interested observer. Davis, having stated erroneously the decision, goes on to argue against it. Note that he doesn't say "in my opinion the Court erred." He makes an ex-cathedra style statement (they did err), which would imply that he is wiser than, and therefore entitled to correct the ruling of, our highest court.

John A. Davison